We do not need Unions to drag down Apple like they did to the American auto industry and California's budget.

Mismanagement bought down the American auto industry not its workers. GM was busy building 3 types of Hummers while Toyota was building Prius' and making its entire line of cars have a hybrid version. You guys here always talk about how these other companies lack the vision Apple has, well that's exactly what the dragged down the American auto industry not unions.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

I agree with Addy! Your anecdotal evidence must, by necessity, hold true for all instances across all professions, in all ways.

Unions exist for the sole purpose of ruining America! (It's the only thing that makes sense.)

Of course not. I never said unions are ruining America. I'm saying they abuse their power. Business abusing power is why unions were originally created in the first place. Now we are seeing the other side of it. Apple stores are doing just fine without a union.

Apparently everyone else commenting here lives in a country where companies do no wrong, where workers are never, ever subject to the whims of bosses who may not have much regard for safety or well-being, and where a single employee has the power and leverage to hold management accountable all by himself!

I'm not saying that Apple Stores are ripe for unionization - I worked at one for awhile and my managers were just fine, the working conditions were good, and I generally had no complaints.

But unions aren't just about those things. They're ultimately about making sure that workers are on a somewhat level playing field with management and ownership. They ensure that what workers lack in wealth is made up by their sheer numbers. Otherwise, they become completely exploitable and expendable. Not all companies would do those things, but it's best for everyone if the possibility is as remote as possible.

Yes, unions can sometimes be corrupt or overreach. Just like government. Just like corporations. But no one talks about abolishing them. No, the only institution people want to abolish is the one that dare represent people who otherwise lack in money and power. How completely upside-down is that?

I think there are plenty of arguments to be made for reform of unions and greater transparency in their dealings. But to attack the very concept, to say that workers shouldn't be allowed to unite and fight for their common interests strikes me as cold, heartless and, yes, un-American.

And, by the way, unions help the economy by making sure that wages in middle class jobs are fair and reasonable. I don't think this would make much difference in a retail setting, but it makes a huge difference in others. Look at construction: In states with low unionization, construction jobs basically pay minimum wage. This is a job that is inherently dangerous and taxing on the body (and in many parts of the U.S., only provides work for 9 months of the year), but in states that afford workers little power, those on top have managed to suppress wage growth. That's not necessarily wrong by itself, but with no force to counter it, it becomes economic injustice.

Wealth disparity on the U.S. is on the rise, yet so many think it's fine that literally the only institution that advocates on behalf of the economic interests of working class and middle class people should just go away. It's very sad.

It's refreshing to read that many people recognize that unions have become more of a problem than anything these days. Living in Detroit, it often seems like everyone is in a union so you don't get a lot of objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of unions. I respect the history of unions and fully believe that there was a point in time when they were necessary, however, in the modern era, this simply is not the case far more often than not.

Obviously in Detroit this is as big of an issue as any, especially lately with what's going on in education. Again, you get a lot of working class people who are pro-union, though theyre not incredibly involved or informed about their own union let alone passionate about it. But I've known multiple people that at one point were union leaders at some of the auto manufacturing plants. They went in with good intentions and tried to maintain their integrity, but quickly dropped out of participating in any way, shape or form. Today, their disgust with the unions and their leadership on whole knows no bounds. And again, these were people who at one point were very pro-union and popular enough to get elected to leadership until they fully realized how little room their is for integrity in modern unions.

The majority of workers in unions are descent people who put in honest hard work on a consistent basis, but they're strung along by union leadership in ways that they oftentimes don't recognize or understand. It's an unfortunate situation. It's been interesting to observe how it's developed into such a political minefield now for both major parties in this country, as even the Democrats have been struggling to maintain their "relationship" with unions knowing full well how big of a problem the unions really are.

Anyways, to the point, this would be an incredibly dumb move for these employees to make. There's no way that this will work out well for them in the end. After all, Steve Jobs has made it no secret that he thinks unions are one of the biggest problems in this country. There's no way this would fly at Apple. The individual stores would be shut down immediately, no doubt about it. I'm sure they know this, which is why I don't expect anything to actually happen. It's most likely just the press making a story out of mostly nothing as usual.

This thread shows most AI posters are from the right. And no surprise, because the biggest group of Apple customers is indeed older white male, who are mostly right-leaning. But people, whether they're from the left or from the right, should learn to stop using those talking points from the media and try to use their independent thinking, and it goes like this:

Union is an institutional arrangement for the workers, and it's used when it's the optimal instituational arrangement for the workers. It's optimal when workers are better off negotiating the terms of contract together against (usually) big corporations. A union that runs well will take away most of the economic profit generated by the corporation, and there's no 'right' or 'wrong' about it because, the output of the corporation is by the joint production of the workers and the capital/management, and there's no clear way to justify morally which side should get what percentage of that output.

I am really surprised at the extent of anti-union sentiment on this board. I would have guessed maybe 50/50, but only one or two have anything positive to say, and even that is qualified.

Working for someone else is an agreement: I will provide a service for you in exchange for money. That agreement is ongoing. When one side or the other feels that the bargain is being violated in some way, fairness dictates the two should sit down, discuss, and reach a solution that is fair to both sides.

Your boss or supervisor doesn't come to the table as an individual like you, but with all the resources the company can muster: lawyers, researchers, consultants, etc. Most Americans believe in justice and fair play. They feel that a level playing field is a good thing. Businesses above the "small business" level have resources to enforce their position on a disagreement far beyond what an average employee can muster. The only way a fair resolution can be achieved is if you have access to equal backing. One guy against a corporation is a stacked deck, loaded dice, a blowout. When employees organize to form a unit, it goes a long way to making sure that both sides get heard.

I bet some of those who said that labor laws now make unions moot would also state in another forum that the less government regulation the better. Unions are not government. They are private, just like companies. Unions are a private sector solution.

Unions are no better or worse than corporations, their are good ones and bad ones, an lot somewhere between. Unfortunately, the ones you hear about are the usually the bad ones.

As far as the sentiment, "if you're not happy then leave" goes, imagine if that was extended to another bargain--that between a citizen and his government. "If you don't like a law, or a ticket, or a policy, then go to another country." That wouldn't be fair. We have mechanisms in our system to address grievances: elected representatives, the courts, etc. We don't say if you don't like it, lump it. Why should our working lives not play by the same rules? If someone paid a contractor to build you a house addition and he didn't finish it, or used cheap substitute materials, should the contractor be permitted to say: "If you don't like my work, go somewhere else? If you say, "no, you can go to court," then I say yes, unions make it possible for workers with few resources to go to court.

We are a government of checks and balances. Unions and corporations check and balance each other. The first amendment to the Constitution give you the right to organize for redress of grievances. To deny citizens the right to organize themselves in the workplace is un-American in the most fundamental way.

Sorry, but in fairness I had to speak out. There should be some balance in this discussion.

+1 Unions are all about collective bargaining. Why is it so wrong for the workers to seek the protection of a contract when every C_O of every company has one? Production has gone up while wages have remained stagnant, and who reaps the benefits? The cooperations

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

"Originally Posted by GQB
What delusion leads you to think that you as an individual have ANY negotiating power against corporations with power once reserved for governments?"

Um... start my own company and work for myself, maybe? Perhaps build myself a server case out of used LEGO pieces and name myself 'Google,' or build a reasonably-priced computer hand-carved out of wood in a garage somewhere and call myself 'Apple.'

So long as individuals are free to work for any company that will hire them, and so long as the opportunity to start your own company is there, corporations aren't the end-all, alpha-and-omega supergiants that control our lives as their minions or slaves. You don't need to be dramatic to drive home your point.

EDIT: I guess my point is if you submit that the only way to be successful or to earn a living in life is at the behest of a corporation that treats you poorly, then I guess you can develop the illusion that somehow 'unionizing' will make that limited existence more bearable. But again, unions were formed at a time when submitting yourself actually was the only way to earn a living. That's just simply not the case, these days. Not in this country, anyway.

I guess your point is your post is about as well thought out as your knee-jerk anti-union attitude, to wit:

"Um... start my own company and work for myself, maybe?"

Yeah, right. Everyone in the whole country should start their own company and work for themselves. About as impractical an idea as I've ever heard of. Next time you decide to shoot your mouth off you might want to consider putting your brain in gear first.

All I can think is that either you're independently wealthy or you're just too damned young to know what the hades you're talking about. If it's the first, then you in particular need to shut your pie hole. If it's the second, then you need to consider that you may not know everything just yet.

Interesting that only the US economy has been dragged down by unions...doesn't seem to be a big problem in Europe.

There are actually plenty of unions in Europe. In Germany the president of the union sits on the Board of Directors and have inside knowledge of whats going on within the company. No secrets, no lies, and no us VS. them.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

"Originally Posted by webfrasse
Interesting that only the US economy has been dragged down by unions...doesn't seem to be a big problem in Europe."
There are actually plenty of unions in Europe. In Germany the president of the union sits on the Board of Directors and have inside knowledge of whats going on within the company. No secrets, no lies, and no us VS. them.

If you are going to chime in with the rest and just say you hate unions then say it. Don't make junk up to "prove" your case.

The idea that unions "destroyed" anything or "ruined the economy" is a complete fantasy based on zero actual facts.

If unions are so bad and we need to outsource all labour to slave economies like China, then why is Foxconn a union shop?

Please refrain from misquoting. Lets drop you the first clue on a looming issue with Unions that affected the auto industry and will reach a critical point for the State of California: pensions. However, this is delving off-topic. One reason for Apple Store employees to avoid Unions is having to pay union dues. My wife had a part-time job at a grocery store where her union dues were more than her monthly pay itself. She had to quit that job after two months.

See, I agree with your points of view right up until this part. You're mixing in various elements and variables that don't jive with the mentioned sentiment. You say "why should our working lives not play by the same rules?" Well, they do! That's why we have labor laws, minimum wages, the Department of Labor, health care reform (for better or worse)... all of these things, coupled with a free market and incentivised competition make it absolutely possible for someone to simply work for a competing company if they do not like their current position. We also have trade schools and colleges to train for and obtain more education and skills to make ourselves more valuable and open up more opportunities.

I'm not saying everything is perfect or that no one has been a victim of an abusive employer, but its a far stretch to say that *only* a union has the ability to provide checks and balances to corporations. That's just nonsense.

I think we're in substantial agreement. But without unions I doubt we would have all the laws and protections you mention.

Mismanagement bought down the American auto industry not its workers. GM was busy building 3 types of Hummers while Toyota was building Prius' and making its entire line of cars have a hybrid version. You guys here always talk about how these other companies lack the vision Apple has, well that's exactly what the dragged down the American auto industry not unions.

With the auto industry, it absolutely goes both ways. There was absolutely mismanagement, no doubt about it. But their was absolutely just as big of a problem with the workers and unions.

What people who make this argument fail to recognize is that companies like GM had to maintain their higher end product lines because that's where the profit was and for a long while, that's what was selling. GM's operating cost is far higher than a Toyota's operating cost and Toyota or Honda don't have to worry about all the money that's gone out to a previous generation of workers. How easy do you think it'd be for GM to streamline their operations and become all the more automated when dealing with the Unions? Here's a hint: it wouldn't be. On top of that, you're going to do so to make cars with much lower profit margins in the face of all this resistance? It's hardly so simple.

Detroit auto management wasn't oblivious to any of this. Again, I agree that they mismanaged the situation none the less, but at the same time, it's not nearly as simple or one-sided of a situation as many make it out to be. Their mismanagement was far more broad in nature than anything related to car design and trends, and it goes many more years back. They let things get out of hand for years on too many fronts when profits were pouring in. There was little foresight or caution and they bent too easily in the wake of it all.

But again, it goes both ways. It all boils down to greed and a lack of foresight by both management and the unions. What unions fail to recognize or respect is that while a company may be raking in the profits for a time, that may not always be the case. By trying to set standards in the bountiful times based on a feeling of entitlement, you set the company and yourself up for a world of trouble if profits shrink.

Companies need the flexibility to change and adapt to trends or laws or whatever it may be in as fast a manner as possible. Apple, for example, has consistently done this and it's lead to much of their success. They bank a lot of money so they have the ability to be incredibly flexible when it comes time to change things up or develop new products, and they also openly make decisions that they fully admit aren't geared towards maximizing current profits. They realize that strategy is everything and part of a good strategy is a good, strong bank account.

All the same, change is generally an expensive, difficult process and offers no guarantees of the highest profitability even if executed perfectly. That's how change goes; you've got to make the most of this. That's what a good company does. Unless the workers are fully open to changing, adapting and taking less money in these times as well, they'd do well to be a whole lot more reasonable at the negotiating table. They might not like it, and it may seem unfair, but by not respecting it, they set themselves and the company up for future trouble down the line. There is always a price for progress.

But hey, who has the foresight for any of that when there's so much greed to focus on instead?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no law saying you have to work there. Just quit if you don't like the working conditions!!

When America was a huge manufacturing company most of it's work force worked in factories, sweat shops, foundries etc... Since most of those industries have for good what is left are white collar and service jobs. White collar jobs pay much better than working in retail or other service places. If you are young, are without a college degree (sometimes with a degree) or live in an area with few economic opportunities chances are you work at a mall, restaurant or some service oriented position dealing with the public. If everyone with these jobs took your advice good luck finding help next time you go shopping or need to call tech support, or want to buy a hamburger. Unions are a sign of democracy where the citizens have a right to demand a safe workplace, a fair wage and reasonable time and benefits. Unions are the only bargaining power the majority of under skilled workers have and they have every right to raise concerns about these issues.

My knowledge of history is vast. Unions may have had a place and a use in the past, but that time is long gone. Unions do more bad than good now, and there is no need for them. Unions are bad for business, bad for the economy and I will go as far as to say that the philosophy of Unions is anti-American. I can see Unions appealing to socialists, underachievers, slackers and other degenerates in society who are looking for a free ride and looking to game the system at the expense of others.

So you think your boss and everyone else's boss is fair and honest all the time in their dealings with employees? I'm old and I have not found that to be true. Unions can even things out a little, but as people have said previously most unions don't seem to be good at that any longer.

Mismanagement bought down the American auto industry not its workers. GM was busy building 3 types of Hummers while Toyota was building Prius' and making its entire line of cars have a hybrid version. You guys here always talk about how these other companies lack the vision Apple has, well that's exactly what the dragged down the American auto industry not unions.

Nope. In 2008, Toyota saw its sales drop ~34% and Honda by ~32%. Except the American auto industry was affected far more due to higher wages compared to their Japanese counterparts.

This thread shows most AI posters are from the right. And no surprise, because the biggest group of Apple customers is indeed older white male, who are mostly right-leaning. But people, whether they're from the left or from the right, should learn to stop using those talking points from the media and try to use their independent thinking, and it goes like this:

Union is an institutional arrangement for the workers, and it's used when it's the optimal instituational arrangement for the workers. It's optimal when workers are better off negotiating the terms of contract together against (usually) big corporations. A union that runs well will take away most of the economic profit generated by the corporation, and there's no 'right' or 'wrong' about it because, the output of the corporation is by the joint production of the workers and the capital/management, and there's no clear way to justify morally which side should get what percentage of that output.

Good thing there's a clear way to justify logically which side should get what percentage of the output. A worker is hired at a certain rate to make a product. If that product should be less profitable, should the worker be subject to a pay cut? Do you think these institutions would stand for that? How do you think the unions liked the idea of changing the auto lines from the big, profitable SUV's to smaller cars with much slimmer profit margins? Oh yeah, on top of that, it'd make many jobs irrelevant. Again, they didn't like the idea much at all.

The workers union may oftentimes make the product, but they do little to steer the direction of the ship. They don't tend to innovate or do research or develop marketing strategies. They're not the one's spending massive amounts of money to take chances that may or may not be profitable. But the company absolutely does need the flexibility to be able to change and evolve or the company might as well have their workers start digging a metaphorical company grave.

The bottom line is that the company needs money to do this. They also need money to pay the brightest minds that generate ideas leading to successful, profitable products so all the workers can have a job at all and keep making those products. Profits should be largely banked for the future, strategic investments should be made when necessary and the brightest minds paid accordingly. The longterm sustainability of the company should always be the primary dictating factor in determining what to do with profits. I would go so far as to say this is not only the most logical choice, it too is also morally justified.

If the management from the auto companies and the workers unions had focused on this objective more over the years, a lot more Detroiters would still have good jobs and the "Big 3" might still actually mean something.

And if true, it would be one of the few things Mr. Jobs and I would be in major disagreement about.

I'm surprised you wouldn't believe it just based around his persona in general and all the stories of him firing people on elevator rides, but here are some very pointed comments made about teachers unions as well as him drawing analogies to correlations in the business world.

Irrelevant. The issue is why American automakers were affected more than their Japanese counterparts in the United States.

Not irrelevant at all. The U.S. had a total collapse of its economy, the Japanese did not. Do you really think that Japanese workers would be more effected by that than American auto workers? Not only did American auto buyers go into a non-purchasing mode, but the American auto industry took a hit from losses to its investments as well--a double whammy. Japanese autos not only have their own market to themselves, but they sell far more cars overseas than U.S. automakers do. So they were far better able to take the hit than U.S automakers. You are taking micro view when a macro view is necessary.

I don't know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that Pixar was/is mostly unionized.

Could be. Cleaning workers are part of SEIU at Apple facilities. This is one of the most militant and effective unions out there. When you represent the most disrespected class of workers, you need to be.

And if it makes any pro-union people feel better, I dislike the stock market in general far more than unions and view it as an even bigger problem.

Apple is a wonderful example to center on in both discussions though, as it's very clear that Apple/Jobs is not a pro-union guy and wouldn't stand for any of the union antics at all, and they're also a public company that consistently refuses to bow to the will of the shareholders for the sake of the company.

They say things that are unpopular. They're vague. They're straight up secretive. They don't reward shareholders despite record profits, preferring to bank the money for strategic investments in the future. Then they spend billions on these "strategic investments" without expanding any more on what they actually are.

But all the while they "somehow" seem to be ahead of the curve, ever-increasingly profitable and generally the most highly-regarded company in the world, lead by the most admired CEO in the world.

Maybe there's something to that.

Companies that continually bow to unions and to shareholders are continuing to struggle. Who's really leading the company at that point? Anyone? You can't progress successfully with that kind of leadership in place. You need the right people with the right ideas calling the shots because that's what their job is. All of this quarter-to-quarter profit concern crap leads to completely backward thinking. Most businesses need to take risks to innovate and remain successful. The more difficult you make it for a business to do that, the less successful the business will ultimately be.

If you don't have strong enough leaders to stand up to the unions and the shareholders in this day and age, you're doomed. I don't care if it's cliche, it's still one of the best quotes on business I've ever read, and I think it applies well to all matters at hand.

"If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me 'A faster horse.'" -Henry Ford

Not irrelevant at all. The U.S. had a total collapse of its economy, the Japanese did not. Do you really think that Japanese workers would be more effected by that than American auto workers? Not only did American auto buyers go into a non-purchasing mode, but the American auto industry took a hit from losses to its investments as well--a double whammy. Japanese autos not only have their own market to themselves, but they sell far more cars overseas than U.S. automakers do. So they were far better able to take the hit than U.S automakers. You are taking micro view when a macro view is necessary.

You do realize that Honda sells more cars in the United States than in the rest of the world combined including Japan? Also, Honda and Toyota manufacture their cars for Americans in the United States and both have separate entities set up in the United States.

And if they choose to unionize what would be their bargaining power? If let's say all retail employees for major department stores belonged to the same union, they might have some leverage since if one store was picketed the union could cause all other stores to also go on strike, but short of that kind of coordinated walk out, the Apple retail employees would have virtually no bargaining power whatsoever.

It wouldn't take a union of all retail employees everywhere. If Apple Store employees unionized they could shut down Apple's retail operations if they went on strike. That's plenty of leverage right there. And a successful strike would inspire employees at other retailers to unionize.

Good thing there's a clear way to justify logically which side should get what percentage of the output. A worker is hired at a certain rate to make a product. If that product should be less profitable, should the worker be subject to a pay cut? Do you think these institutions would stand for that? How do you think the unions liked the idea of changing the auto lines from the big, profitable SUV's to smaller cars with much slimmer profit margins? Oh yeah, on top of that, it'd make many jobs irrelevant. Again, they didn't like the idea much at all.

The workers union may oftentimes make the product, but they do little to steer the direction of the ship. They don't tend to innovate or do research or develop marketing strategies. They're not the one's spending massive amounts of money to take chances that may or may not be profitable. But the company absolutely does need the flexibility to be able to change and evolve or the company might as well have their workers start digging a metaphorical company grave.

The bottom line is that the company needs money to do this. They also need money to pay the brightest minds that generate ideas leading to successful, profitable products so all the workers can have a job at all and keep making those products. Profits should be largely banked for the future, strategic investments should be made when necessary and the brightest minds paid accordingly. The longterm sustainability of the company should always be the primary dictating factor in determining what to do with profits. I would go so far as to say this is not only the most logical choice, it too is also morally justified.

If the management from the auto companies and the workers unions had focused on this objective more over the years, a lot more Detroiters would still have good jobs and the "Big 3" might still actually mean something.

Did the CEO, CFO, COO, and all the other C_Os take a pay cut? No. So why should the guy at the bottom take a pay cut? BTW its not the unions job to innovate. Thats like Apple depending on Foxxconn to come up with ideas for its next device. GMs R&D dept was asleep for way too long.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

It wouldn't take a union of all retail employees everywhere. If Apple Store employees unionized they could shut down Apple's retail operations if they went on strike. That's plenty of leverage right there. And a successful strike would inspire employees at other retailers to unionize.

Ok and whats wrong with that?

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

You do realize that Honda sells more cars in the United States than in the rest of the world combined including Japan? Also, Honda and Toyota manufacture their cars for Americans in the United States and both have separate entities set up in the United States.

+1000000 I was just going to write that and you beat me to it. BTW did you know that GM is the biggest importer of cars into the US?

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

Agreed. This crowd doesn't realize that they have the luxury of spending time playing around in discussion forums because so many Americans gave their lives during the Labor Wars. They probably think Labor Day is just another chance for a barbeque.

That said, retail in 21st century California is a far cry from the coal mines of 1920's. With existing laws regarding breaks and wages (some of the positive outcomes of the Labor Wars), if these employees can demonstrate that Apple's violating the law they have a stronger case than one for merely creating a union. Apple has deep pockets, and if they're breaking the law then there's a lot more to be made here than a longer break.

But if Apple is within the bounds of the law, working there is a choice. The employees can fix this situation by finding another employer who pays more (Costco, for one example, has some of the best salary and benefits packages in the industry).

If enough employees leave, things may change. The average cost to a company to replace a retail employee is about $3500-5000, depending on the skills and experience of the individual.

Certainly Apple can afford it, but do they really want to keep wages low enough only to attract lowballers? How attractive would the Apple Store experience be if populated only by those who couldn't get a job at Costco?

Or are there enough starry-eyed people out there willing to work for substandard wages that Apple has an endless supply as long as it keeps up it's "cool" mystique?

Hard to say how this will turn out, but I don't think unionization is the best option in this case. Far better would be to vote with your feet. If an employer is abusive, staying just won't be a good time whether you get a longer break or not.

@MacRulez,

You and I do not often see eye-to-eye on these forums -- but I mostly agree with what you said, above.

And, I am OK with Apple employees (or any employees) right to unionize or take any legal collective action to improve their situation or redress perceived wrongs.

This, coming from a former owner, CEO, COO, of a small corporation (126 employees) that had retail computer stores. We sold Apples, IBM PCs, etc.

We were non-union -- but that was never an issue.

All our employees were salaried and non-comissioned -- we felt that all personnel should treat all customers as their customers!

We did offer bonuses for special individual performance -- and when the "team" met defined goals.

We had the best employees -- well qualified and well trained.

Our employees received top pay equal (or better benefits) than management and owners.

We promoted from within, and most of our employees were with us for many years -- very little turnover.

Most of those who left, had outgrown us -- and a large number of these went to work for Apple directly! (We had the best [Apple] computer stores in Silicon Valley -- and our main store was less than 1 mile from Apple Headquarters.

We had a lot of customers who were unionized -- and our employees had to be aware of, and comply with union regulations when we went on site (Government, Medical, Education, Manufacturing...).

Unions are a fact of life and business needs to co-exist with them.

In over 11 years, I can count on one hand the number of serious employer/employee issues.

The reasons I am detailing all this:

1) Unions are not necessarily a good or bad thing -- though anecdotally I can document both good and bad experiences.

2) If you treat your employees fairly, as equal members of a team -- you/they should find little need to look elsewhere for satisfaction.

3) Apple knows this -- and has one of the best working environments of any major corporation.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

They also have a right to not work for an employer they feel is screwing them over

To what end? Is a person to continue going from job to job because employers know they can screw with people? In a big city people have choices of where to work but in small towns its much less. I dont know about you but I dont see many HELP WANTED signs out there.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

You and I do not often see eye-to-eye on these forums -- but I mostly agree with what you said, above.

And, I am OK with Apple employees (or any employees) right to unionize or take any legal collective action to improve their situation or redress perceived wrongs.

This, coming from a former owner, CEO, COO, of a small corporation (126 employees) that had retail computer stores. We sold Apples, IBM PCs, etc.

We were non-union -- but that was never an issue.

All our employees were salaried and non-comissioned -- we felt that all personnel should treat all customers as their customers!

We did offer bonuses for special individual performance -- and when the "team" met defined goals.

We had the best employees -- well qualified and well trained.

Our employees received top pay equal (or better benefits) than management and owners.

We promoted from within, and most of our employees were with for many years -- very little turnover.

Most of those who left, had outgrown us -- and a large number of these went to work for Apple directly! (We had the best [Apple] computer stores in Silicon Valley -- and our main store was less than 1 mile from Apple Headquarters.

We had a lot of customers who were unionized -- and had to be aware of, and comply with union regulations when we went on site (Government, Medical, Education, Manufacturing...).

Unions are a fact of life and business needs to co-exist with the.
In over 11 years, I can count on one hand the number of serious employer/employee issues.

The reasons I am detailing all this:

1) Unions are not necessarily a good or bad thing -- though anecdotally I can document both good and bad experiences.

2) If you treat your employees fairly, as equal members of a team -- you/they should find little need to look elsewhere for satisfaction.

3) Apple knows this -- and has one of the best working environments of any major corporation.

Shoot if every company were like that there would be no need for unions.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

To what end? Is a person to continue going from job to job because employers know they can screw with people? In a big city people have choices of where to work but in small towns its much less

Employers are not slave-owners, friend. There are labor laws, regulations, etc. If an employer isn't following the law, there are places to report them to. If you've been treated unfairly, feel free to sue.

There's opportunity abound. If you live in a small city and you're limited to what jobs are available, well, then move. Seriously, if you want to be a famous actor, come to Los Angeles. If you want to be an animator, go to Georgia. If you want to be a game developer, Seattle is calling you. *YOU* have to make the effort if you want a good living, not rely on some organization to decide that for you.

If you don't like your job, find a new one. Not qualified to find a better one? Go to school and get some training. Don't want to go through the effort and work hard? Deal with your situation, then, and stop complaining that your HIGH-DEMAND job forces you to work so hard when there are tons of applicants just waiting to replace you.